Hall Of Fame
Check the posts MM, that was i961pie and his inability to quote properly.
But I'll answer since you drag me into it.
We have one court adjudicating against Johnson and another saying they can't even start to! Both were appealed and everything goes up to the Supreme Court. Might they say the same as the High Court? Maybe, but surely there's an important role in our system (without a written constitution) for the judiciary to check political abuses. When would they start to intervene. Before or after we have a dictatorship?!
Why was parliament prorogued - For the queen's speech? To stop scrutiny? Actually, I think it was a lot to do with a third reason - to provoke the opposition, to smoke out those 21. It followed immediately after the opposition decided against a no confidence vote in favour of the legislative route. The proroguing is in effect only a few days and it still allowed the oppo to pass that bill. I doubt Rees-Mogg went to the queen and said 'tactics, Maam, tactics'. And with these jokers in power you can't rule out a fourth reason - a fit of pique! The problem now is that Parliament wants to scrutinise everything that's happening at this crucial time in our history. And do you pass a Queen's speech by expelling 21 MPs when you've already lost a majority?
I noticed EP said the Supreme Court will bottle it. That's probably right. I'm as sceptical as anybody on the independence of the judiciary. If they truly are independent, Pfeffel could be in deep trouble and have to go next week. If they're not, he still might be. They could be swayed the other way, this countries institutions are being trashed in plain view, Govt, Parliament, the courts, the civil service, so you never know... Next week is going to be interesting
Hall Of Fame
If the supreme court backs Boris in your eyes and many remainers they will have bottled it, if they go against him in leavers eyes it will be the establishment against the brexit vote.Originally Posted by the_anticlough
After all this debate and argument over the past 3 years is there anyone on here that's changed their mind on how they voted?
Hall Of Fame
Twisting them again son aren't you? Please refer to post #492. I said " If Boris lied OR misled the Queen" - I'd support your campaign.
To mislead doesn't necessarily mean telling falsehoods or untruths, just that the end result is in causing someone to have a misconception about something. Lying, meanwhile, is the act of saying something that is demonstrably not true while knowing it to be not true. I would assume Boris ONLY asked the Queen to prologue parliament, to which she agreed - so no LIES involved, which seems to be your way of thinking. Do you not honestly believe the Queen was unaware of his other motives? She's not thick you know, she granted prorogation perfectly lawfully and I'm sure the Supreme Court will agree. Keep reading the 'Mirror' and listening to the BBC to keep your spirits up old lad.
Hall Of Fame
Obviously not me i961pie, a votes a vote which must be implemented as laid down by the vote regulations in my simplistic view, otherwise anarchy which is nearly upon us. Nice to see this morning how the anti Brexit BBC are pushing the Cameron revelations in his memoirs, just another desperate throw of the dice to back the Remainers OR publicise his book methinks. If the HC case goes against Boris next week, I'll bet that self publicising/promoting Gina Miller has already prepared for her many TV appearances with a new frock and makeup artist booked. Well it earns her a few quid more doesn't it? Might have offered John 'Squeaky Clean' Major a date as well?
Last edited by seriouspie; 14-09-2019 at 09:09 AM.
Hall Of Fame
Aha, acceptance! The patient is making progress.
Well actually it's the public's decision that matters. (Most) voters know that referendum or election campaign promises by either/all sides are not made under oath, and we have no way of knowing how much or how little credence voters gave to any particular claim in reaching their decision. Indeed, if Remain had won, I could not prove one way or another whether George Osborne's emergency budget threat had swung it.
Of course, the irony is that we still haven't even left yet, so none of us knows for certain which forecasts of glory or doom will come ultimately to pass. We know that there has been economic turbulence in the past two years around the ongoing uncertainty about whether, when and how the public's decision will be implemented, but people could blame that on the Theresa May government's shoddy negotiating or the Remainers' ongoing delaying tactics, depending on their perspective.
If Jeremy Corbyn gets his way at the next General Election, we might yet have the chance to test that out, or at least some very similar "promises"!
Your middle two paragraphs are disingenuous bolox quite frankly. Winning campaigns win because of the promises and pledges they make. What losing campaigns promise or threaten doesn’t matter.
If we’d joined the Euro the day after a vote to remain, it would rightly have been decried as undemocratic. No deal is the equivalent of that. The leave campaign repeatedly promised that we’d get a great deal, a promise that is already demonstrably rubbish.
You likened the EU to the mafia in a previous post. This was because of its reluctance to let anyone leave. You used that as a reason why we should leave. If the EU had been accommodating, and we as promised left with a great deal, that would have been a reason to leave as well. To repeat, your arguments, as with virtually all leavers, don’t stand up to any logic or reason.
Hall Of Fame
May tied one arm behind her back and then went into negotiate. I'm pretty sure I'd beat you in a fight if you'd do the same.
One thing I remember clearly from the pre-referendum discussions was a point raised that we had lost nearly all our trade negotiators as the EU was now dealing with such matters. It would seem we couldn't negotiate ourselves out of a paper bag.
Problem is that BoJo has inherited the same incapacity and no matter how hard he slashes around with his free arm he can't free himself of the previous incumbent's impotence.
Hall Of Fame
May tied her own hands with her red lines when she was trying to placate the hard right of her party.
You’re right about the negotiators. It was commonly raised by some of the people I follow that the UK side would get eaten alive in negotiations, quite apart from having a weaker position to begin win. I’m not sure though ‘we have crap negotiators’ was a line the leave campaign would have been eager to put out.,
Last edited by BigFatPie; 14-09-2019 at 10:04 AM.
Hall Of Fame
I was talking about post #489 were your words were "Most certainly I would if convicted of telling lies as the law must be upheld although I believe the relevent question is "did he mislead the Queen" in his motives to ask for the closure of parliament, not that he lied to her. Whatever the forthcoming ruling is I would abide with it and if the word "Lie" is part of that ruling I would support you".
That's where you were differentiating.
Hall Of Fame
Hi all
When using the 'reply with quote' facility can you be careful that the quote code has copied the correct part and attributed it to the right poster? It's been pointed out that confusion is happening due to misattributed quotes and although I've attempted to repair them when spotted or pointed out (and probably made it worse!) it becomes increasingly tricky after the first one
Ta!
Hall Of Fame
Can't argue with that really. But for once, the perception of what they do isn't as important as what actually happens.
Johnson's in a mess whatever happens, but if the Supreme Court uphold the Court of Session ruling he's got to resign as PM and probably the tory party leadership too.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
